Do you find yourself processing a base file then taking that to LightRoom?

[john beardsworth]

I didn't compare the brands, but said being limited to one brand is a weakness in DAM terms.

As you know, your projects suggestion only corresponds to the OS folder structure at the moment you set it up, and the two are not linked and easily drift apart. Perhaps in theory users may wish to trust the benevolent software vendor to look after files' physical locations, but that's just short term thinking and in practice a DAM app should offer direct control. And only today Aperture Expert posted advice about how to use the horrid relocate originals dialog.

[Vladimirovich]

Vladimirovich: I don't see how ACR or LR are better at skin blemishes over PS.

well, it is simply easier for me to do the first pass removing pimples/acne in ACR... just like that, has nothing to do w/ all the power that PS has (I finish postprocessing in PS always).

Vladimirovich: Also if you do lots of Spot remove in LR it will increase the size of the file/cache. (Of course in PS I do a copy of the layer).

I am not using LR, so I really do not care what happens in LR...

[Phil Indeblanc]

Ditto that.  It maybe ok if you have a small number of images that you "move off" your current work catalog, but for anything long term... if it doesn't have DIR structure, you might as well have your head in the clouds. Like I asked before, what size is your image catalog? what size are your image files each? This can impact how you think some applications work.

While I do love the process of C1, one can only notice a trend when you look at the threads posted in each sw's respective catagory. Reading the subjects of them, you notice a distinction...One is a list of different problems using the software, while the other is a list of questions on future wish lists, or how one can further do X and Y, or simple questions of what it cannot do, or when a limit maybe reached in size or print, etc.  It just gives the readers a overall expectation that one is smooth easy to use and for the most part trouble free.  And that has something to do with me asking if you do the basics in C1 then hand off to LR/ACR or even PS (to an extent is valid to be included in my "study" for some users reasons). 

[Bob Rockefeller]

And only today Aperture Expert posted advice about how to use the horrid relocate originals dialog.

It is horrid. And tacked on.

Personally, I don't find abstracting away the storage location of RAW files on my hard drive any problem at all. Computers are good at abstracting complexity and I don't have the need to touch the files themselves via the Finder unless and until I've rendered and exported them.

The only limitation I see for Aperture's library is for very large image collections that won't fit on a single device. Some have taken the approach of a new library for each "chunk" and putting each "chunk" on a different device. My collection is a long way from exceeding the capacity of a 4 drive RAID or it's matched clone (backup).

But why is it such a common thread that we "must" have the ability to see and manipulate the system file structure directly?

[Phil Indeblanc]

But why is it such a common thread that we "must" have the ability to see and manipulate the system file structure directly?

If you use an organized file structure to give some order or seperation to your images, and you dont want the entire thing to be relied on metadata, and you already have a library and only in the past couple years started to use metadata, and would be overwehlming to input all kinds of metadata to 20 years of photography, with many images being scanned with zero file info...Forget 20 years, just go back 2 or 3 years for metadata being a easy norm way of managing.  Besides, Metadata is limited on compatibility. You go from C1 to LR or Bridge, and there are things that they don't communicate. It is a limiting factor.  Although a folder structure maybe something you might do manually, and I do it but very little...

It is also speed and practical...Having derivative files with a simple glace of the folders gets the job done fastest with no cluttered thumbnails.  Without it you are forced to examine each file. If you export to a folder named "Jpeg_1200dpi_Color...etc, You know that the folder will contain all those instead of doing a limiting search and stopping what you're doing.

Knowing where and what things are shouldn't interfere with your work. simple as that for me.

[john beardsworth]

But why is it such a common thread that we "must" have the ability to see and manipulate the system file structure directly?

Because, as well as people being comfortable with folders and wanting control, we need the certainty of being able to use low level tools such as folders to sort out problems. You might as well question why  the photo files need to exist anywhere once they're imported. After all, a database could store them as blob data in the SQL. Would you be happy to go that far? Of course, the downside of providing folders in the UI is that it leads some people to try to use them to categorize and organize.

[ario]

"But why is it such a common thread that we "must" have the ability to see and manipulate the system file structure directly?"

For me it gives the freedom to change the organizing tools at any time starting always from a solid well known platform. I decided many years back, before starting to use any database sw, to organize my "originals" in a way which is logical to me and on that solid platform I have used (so far) without difficulties Aperture, LR and Capture One as organizing tools, may be tomorrow I will use a different database but I will certainly know where to start from.

[pfigen]

While CaptureOne 7 is the best C1 yet, and my first choice for raw processing, every single image I work on always end up in Photoshop, which has much better and more precise controls, better masking, basically better everything. What comes out of C1 is just a starting point to what happens later, but it's a great starting point. Not sure why some people seem to want to use one program for everything. As far as asset management, I've been using Extensis Portfolio since mid 1995, when the realization came to me that managing digital files needed a professional solution. Portfolio takes every kind of file thrown at it and never complains. Not sure that the other solutions can say that.

[David Grover / Capture One]

"But why is it such a common thread that we "must" have the ability to see and manipulate the system file structure directly?"

For me it gives the freedom to change the organizing tools at any time starting always from a solid well known platform. I decided many years back, before starting to use any database sw, to organize my "originals" in a way which is logical to me and on that solid platform I have used (so far) without difficulties Aperture, LR and Capture One as organizing tools, may be tomorrow I will use a different database but I will certainly know where to start from.

In case it is not common knowledge, you can elect to keep your system folder structure in Capture One Pro 7 and organise in that way.

Alternatively you can use the organisational tools in the Library area such as Projects, Albums, Smart Albums and Groups.

Of course you can use a combination as well.

[Phil Indeblanc]

What comes out of C1 is just a starting point to what happens later, but it's a great starting point. Not sure why some people seem to want to use one program for everything. As far as asset management, I've been using Extensis Portfolio since mid 1995, when the realization came to me that managing digital files needed a professional solution. Portfolio takes every kind of file thrown at it and never complains. Not sure that the other solutions can say that.

Exactly!!

Making access to our files regardless of "selected working folder" is crucial to having a unrestricted workflow. I work in a similar way as pfigen, although I do use LR for most of what I normally would do in PS(grads, some light spots, local brush, HSL color, BW convertions, etc) on about half  my images, others for production are finished in PS.